A host of stars including Tom Hardy, Idris Elba and Benedict Cumberbatch have taken part in an energetic photoshoot for campaign group Stand Up To Cancer. Photographer Greg Williams snapped the actors sprinting along a street or through an office for the organisation's new autumn 2015 campaign.
Hardy was photographed running down a road while wearing just a hooded top and boxer shorts, Elba was snapped sprinting in jeans and a shirt, and Cumberbatch appears to be fleeing a building.
Other actors involved in the shoot include The X-Files star Gillian Anderson, Pushing Daisies' Anna Friel, Les Miserables hunk Eddie Redmayne, and funnyman Steve Coogan.
Snapper Williams explains his aim was to capture the stars running "as fast as they can, as if trying to save a life", adding, "The quicker we move, the faster we can find cures and help people. It makes perfect sense really."

DreamWorks
For the bulk of every Rocky and Bullwinkle episode, moose and squirrel would engage in high concept escapades that satirized geopolitics, contemporary cinema, and the very fabrics of the human condition. With all of that to work with, there's no excuse for why the pair and their Soviet nemeses haven't gotten a decent movie adaptation. But the ingenious Mr. Peabody and his faithful boy Sherman are another story, intercut between Rocky and Bullwinkle segments to teach kids brief history lessons and toss in a nearly lethal dose of puns. Their stories and relationship were much simpler, which means that bringing their shtick to the big screen would entail a lot more invention — always risky when you're dealing with precious material.
For the most part, Mr. Peabody &amp; Sherman handles the regeneration of its heroes aptly, allowing for emotionally substance in their unique father-son relationship and all the difficulties inherent therein. The story is no subtle metaphor for the difficulties surrounding gay adoption, with society decreeing that a dog, no matter how hyper-intelligent, cannot be a suitable father. The central plot has Peabody hosting a party for a disapproving child services agent and the parents of a young girl with whom 7-year-old Sherman had a schoolyard spat, all in order to prove himself a suitable dad. Of course, the WABAC comes into play when the tots take it for a spin, forcing Peabody to rush to their rescue.
Getting down to personals, we also see the left brain-heavy Peabody struggle with being father Sherman deserves. The bulk of the emotional marks are hit as we learn just how much Peabody cares for Sherman, and just how hard it has been to accept that his only family is growing up and changing.
DreamWorks
But more successful than the new is the film's handling of the old — the material that Peabody and Sherman purists will adore. They travel back in time via the WABAC Machine to Ancient Egypt, the Renaissance, and the Trojan War, and 18th Century France, explaining the cultural backdrop and historical significance of the settings and characters they happen upon, all with that irreverent (but no longer racist) flare that the old cartoons enjoyed. And oh... the puns.
Mr. Peabody &amp; Sherman is a f**king treasure trove of some of the most amazingly bad puns in recent cinema. This effort alone will leave you in awe.
The film does unravel in its final act, bringing the science-fiction of time travel a little too close to the forefront and dropping the ball on a good deal of its emotional groundwork. What seemed to be substantial building blocks do not pay off in the way we might, as scholars of animated family cinema, have anticipated, leaving the movie with an unfinished feeling.
But all in all, it's a bright, compassionate, reasonably educational, and occasionally funny if not altogether worthy tribute to an old favorite. And since we don't have our own WABAC machine to return to a time of regularly scheduled Peabody and Sherman cartoons, this will do okay for now.
If nothing else, it's worth your time for the puns.
3/5
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//

Lions Gate via Everett Collection
When we last left our heroes, they had conquered all opponents in the 74th Annual Hunger Games, returned home to their newly refurbished living quarters in District 12, and fallen haplessly to the cannibalism of PTSD. And now we're back! Hitching our wagons once again to laconic Katniss Everdeen and her sweet-natured, just-for-the-camera boyfriend Peeta Mellark as they gear up for a second go at the Capitol's killing fields.
But hold your horses — there's a good hour and a half before we step back into the arena. However, the time spent with Katniss and Peeta before the announcement that they'll be competing again for the ceremonial Quarter Quell does not drag. In fact, it's got some of the film franchise's most interesting commentary about celebrity, reality television, and the media so far, well outweighing the merit of The Hunger Games' satire on the subject matter by having Katniss struggle with her responsibilities as Panem's idol. Does she abide by the command of status quo, delighting in the public's applause for her and keeping them complacently saturated with her smiles and curtsies? Or does Katniss hold three fingers high in opposition to the machine into which she has been thrown? It's a quarrel that the real Jennifer Lawrence would handle with a castigation of the media and a joke about sandwiches, or something... but her stakes are, admittedly, much lower. Harvey Weinstein isn't threatening to kill her secret boyfriend.
Through this chapter, Katniss also grapples with a more personal warfare: her devotion to Gale (despite her inability to commit to the idea of love) and her family, her complicated, moralistic affection for Peeta, her remorse over losing Rue, and her agonizing desire to flee the eye of the public and the Capitol. Oftentimes, Katniss' depression and guilty conscience transcends the bounds of sappy. Her soap opera scenes with a soot-covered Gale really push the limits, saved if only by the undeniable grace and charisma of star Lawrence at every step along the way of this film. So it's sappy, but never too sappy.
In fact, Catching Fire is a masterpiece of pushing limits as far as they'll extend before the point of diminishing returns. Director Francis Lawrence maintains an ambiance that lends to emotional investment but never imposes too much realism as to drip into territories of grit. All of Catching Fire lives in a dreamlike state, a stark contrast to Hunger Games' guttural, grimacing quality that robbed it of the life force Suzanne Collins pumped into her first novel.
Once we get to the thunderdome, our engines are effectively revved for the "fun part." Katniss, Peeta, and their array of allies and enemies traverse a nightmare course that seems perfectly suited for a videogame spin-off. At this point, we've spent just enough time with the secondary characters to grow a bit fond of them — deliberately obnoxious Finnick, jarringly provocative Johanna, offbeat geeks Beedee and Wiress — but not quite enough to dissolve the mystery surrounding any of them or their true intentions (which become more and more enigmatic as the film progresses). We only need adhere to Katniss and Peeta once tossed in the pit of doom that is the 75th Hunger Games arena, but finding real characters in the other tributes makes for a far more fun round of extreme manhunt.
But Catching Fire doesn't vie for anything particularly grand. It entertains and engages, having fun with and anchoring weight to its characters and circumstances, but stays within the expected confines of what a Hunger Games movie can be. It's a good one, but without shooting for succinctly interesting or surprising work with Katniss and her relationships or taking a stab at anything but the obvious in terms of sending up the militant tyrannical autocracy, it never even closes in on the possibility of being a great one.
3.5/5
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//

CBS
Given the astronomical ratings of The Big Bang Theory, currently the most-watched scripted show on television, CBS could get decent ratings for the rest of Thursday night if they just ran a loop of old aspirin commercials from the 1950s. Y'know, the ones with the little animated jackhammers attacking a cartoon x-ray of the pounding skull of a man in a gray flannel suit.
Actually, now that I say that, that would be awesome. They should totally do that.
Sadly, it would be more entertaining than either of the new sitcoms CBS has currently scheduled for Thursday nights between The Big Bang Theory and the increasingly irrelevant Two and a Half Men. Both The Crazy Ones and The Millers have excellent casts and high-powered off-screen talent, and yet both are seriously hampered by terrible scripts and inconsistent characterization.
Look At Me, I'm Wonderful!
The Crazy Ones is a bizarrely self-indulgent trifle from David E. Kelley, who indulges all of his most irritatingly whimsical mannerisms on this tale of an aging Chicago ad executive. Speaking of whimsical mannerisms, Robin Williams returns to television for the first time in over thirty years as creative genius Simon Roberts, caught in a strange no-man's-land between the cocaine-fueled anarchy of his old stand-up persona and the icky sentimentality of his "serious" film roles. Sarah Michelle Gellar has the thankless role of his daughter and creative partner Sydney, an underwritten part that's supposed to serve as the buffer between Williams' antic riffing and the audience. But since she spends most of her screen time being exasperated by her dad's schtick, the audience also finds his tics obnoxious and tiring.
The genuinely talented Hamish Linklater is utterly wasted as the agency's art director; his sole memorable character trait is that he talks at the same time as Sydney, making both of them unintelligible, which I suspect we're supposed to find endearing and make us want the characters to hook up or something. James Wolk, last season's Mad Men breakout, plays a smarmy charmer who makes Bob Benson look the soul of office discretion. But by far the most annoying is Amanda Setton as Sydney's assistant. She's a likeable actor, whom you may remember from the early episodes of The Mindy Project, where she gamely did the best she could as the generic Jersey-girl receptionist before she was written out of the show. But her key scene in the pilot, where she offered to let Simon smell her hair because "the scent of a young woman's shampoo" is supposed to reinvigorate an older man, was Kelley at his creepy, patronizing worst. I mean, it was just really icky.
Congratulations, Dads, You're No Longer 2013's Worst Sitcom
Still, as annoying as it is, The Crazy Ones is still at least slightly better than The Millers. Creator and executive producer Greg Garcia is in danger of losing all the goodwill he got as the creator of My Name Is Earl and the genially charming Raising Hope with this formulaic tripe. With Will Arnett, Margo Martindale and Beau Bridges in the leads, the show has an immensely talented cast. But the by-the-numbers plot (local news reporter Nathan finally tells his bickering parents that he divorced his wife, which promptly causes his father to walk out on his mother after 43 years) is more suited to one of those tongue in cheek retro series that they're making on Nick At Nite. The quality of the writing is even worse: unrealistically sitcommy, with telegraphed jokes and obnoxiously broad characterizations. The enormously talented Martindale is stuck playing a shrill, intrusive mother, and as the clueless and accident-prone dad, Bridges gives Homer Simpson a run for the most too-stupid-to-be-alive character currently on TV. The always-appealing Jayma Mays, as Nathan's younger sister Debbie, comes closest to likeable, but she's nowhere near enough to save this mess.
Follow @Hollywood_com
//
More:Why 'Bob's Burgers' Has The Most Relatable TV FamilyIs Lorne Michaels Behind the Miley/Sinead Feud?Life Lessons from TV's Leading Ladies
From Our PartnersStars Pose Naked for 'Allure' (Celebuzz)20 Grisliest TV Deaths of 2012-2013 (Vulture)

One of the best parts of any awards shows is seeing the reactions of the different nominees. How do the winners handle being honored for their work? Do they walk on stage a complete blubbering mess, or do they stride up to the front of the room with bravado and give a fantastic speech? How do the losing nominees handle seeing that golden statue ripped from their grasp? When there are hundreds of cameras trained on their every facial twitch, there are bound to be some pretty great reaction shots. Here are our top 10 faces and reactions from Emmy winners, losers, and presenters.
Vanessa Williams
Vanessa Williams is cool. I mean, she's just way too cool to be joking around at an award show when she's about to get an Emmy. She's a diva, people! So when Amy Poehler and company devised the goofy gag of wearing various pieces of eyewear while the nominees were being announced, Williams tastefully declined with a look that's a combination of "Hell no am I getting involved with this l foolishness!" and "Where's my Emmy?" while shaking her head dismissively at the camera. She ended up losing to Kristin Chenoweth (at least she went home without wearing an eye patch).
Kristin Chenoweth
Speaking of Chenoweth, her scrunched up face and acceptance speech after her win for Pushing Daisies was simply adorable. Her pixie-like excitement and crocodile tears are just to much to bear. Lines like "I'm unemployed now, so I would like to be on Mad Men" just make the clip even better.
Aaron Paul
Okay so this moment wasn't at the actual awards show, but it's close enough. If you have a pulse, and you've watched at least five minutes of any given episode of Breaking Bad, then you already love Aaron Paul and his character Jesse Pinkman. But someone as likeable as Paul can surprise you time and time again. During the announcement ceremony for the 2013 Emmys, when Paul learned that he has secured yet another Emmy nomination (8:44 in the video), his face contorted into such childlike glee that his excitement is infectious. The fact that he can get so excited over an award he already has won twice before is very endearing.
Sally Fields
In her Emmy win in 2007 for Brothers and Sisters, Sally Fields launched into a tribute to mothers around the globe. With a face full of conviction and passion, she speaks out against war and says the controversial line, "Let's face it. If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no goddamned war in the first place!”
Steve Carell
Let me give you a little backstory first. Ricky Gervais and Steve Carell have had a bit of a rivalry ever since Carell hilariously "stole" Gervais' Emmy the year before. Now cut to 2008, when Gervais demanded his Emmy back and began to tear into Carell with jokes. Even while everyone else in the theater, including Carell's wife, was collapsing back into their chairs with giggle fits, Carell retained his stony visage, never breaking. He could probably withstand the harshest of tortures. Eventually he relinquished the Emmy, but only after fierce comical prodding by Gervais.
Bryan Cranston
After proving to be a comedy workhouse on Malcom in the Middle for six years, it seemed Bryan Cranston would never get the recognition he deserves by the Emmys. Just how many scenes of a man prancing in his underwear does it take to get an Emmy these days anyway? Luckily, Cranston continued taking off his pants in his next show Breaking Bad, enough times, in fact, to finally secure him the Emmy. When he does win, Cranston's look of surprise and graditude is heartwarming.
Greg Garcia
When Greg Garcia won an Emmy for his hilarious sitcom My Name Is Earl, he used his short time on stage to its fullest, and gave a triumphant up-yours to everyone who ever doubted him, insulted his intelligence, or made him scrape gum off their shoes throughout his rise to sitcom greatness. Even God almighty doesn't escape his comedic wrath.
Kate Winslet
It's nice to see an actress with as much award recognition as Kate Winslet get so excited about winning an award, as she didwhen she won for her performance in Mildred Pierce. When Winslet heard her name, she jumped up and down and sported a face full of genuine excitement.
Andy Samberg
Winning an Emmy would be a massive achievement for some people, but Andy Samberg looked like he was confused as to why he was even invited to the ceremony at all. When Samberg and The Lonely Island Crew won an Emmy for "Dick in a Box," he put on his best grin and went on to poke fun at the entire award show with hefty amounts of sarcasm that probably just rubbed salt in the wounds of people who actually really wanted win.
Jon Stewart
Having to watch Jon Stewart win the Emmy for Best Variety Show year after year must be tough, and in 2012, Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert finally hit their breaking point. The two hosts tackled Stewart and tried their best to stop him from reaching the stage in a funny bit of physical comedy. When Stewart finally reached the stage to accept his golden prize, he looked like he just ran a marathon in a tuxedo. His face was visibly winded when he said (at 1:19 in the video), "I'm not in the kind of shape I should be in to do a bit with Jimmy Fallon."
More:15 Best and Worst Emmy DressesDid The Emmys Forget About 'The Americans'2013 Emmy Nominations
Follow @Hollywood_com
//
From Our Partners:A Complete History Of Twerking (1993-2013) (Vh1)15 Stars Share Secrets of their Sex Lives (Celebuzz)

After Dark Films
It seems a bit odd to take on a movie review of Courtney Solomon's Getaway, as only in the loosest terms is Getaway actually a movie. We begin without questions — other than a vague and frustrating "What the hell is going on?" — and end without answers, watching Ethan Hawke drive his car into things (and people) for the hour and a half in between. We learn very little along the way, probed to engage in the mystery of the journey. But we don't, because there's no reason to.
There's not a single reason to wonder about any of the things that happen to Hawke's former racecar driver/reformed criminal — forced to carry out a series of felonious commands by a mysterious stranger who is holding his wife hostage — because there doesn't seem to be a single ounce of thought poured into him beyond what he see. We learn, via exposition delivered by him to gun-toting computer whiz Selena Gomez, that he "did some bad things" before meeting the love of his life and deciding to put that all behind him. Then, we stop learning. We stop thinking. We start crashing into police cars and Christmas trees and power plants.
Why is Selena Gomez along for the ride? Well, the beginnings of her involvement are defensible: Hawke is carrying out his slew of vehicular crimes in a stolen car. It's her car. And she's on a rampage to get it back. But unaware of what she's getting herself into, Gomez confronts an idling Hawke with a gun, is yanked into the automobile, and forced to sit shotgun while the rest of the driver's "assignments" are carried out. But her willingness to stick by Hawke after hearing his story is ludicrous. Their immediate bickering falls closer to catty sexual tension than it does to genuine derision and fear (you know, the sort of feelings you'd have for someone who held you up or forced you into accessorizing a buffet of life-threatening crimes).
After Dark Films
The "gradual" reversal of their relationship is treated like something we should root for. But with so little meat packed into either character, the interwoven scenes of Hawke and Gomez warming up to each other and becoming a team in the quest to save the former's wife serve more than anything else as a breather from all the grotesque, impatient, deliberately unappealing scenes of city wreckage.
And as far as consolidating the mystery, the film isn't interested in that either, as evidenced by its final moments. Instead of pressing focus on the answers to whatever questions we may have, the movie's ultimate reveal is so weak, unsubstantial, and entirely disconnected to the story entirely, that it seems almost offensive to whatever semblance of a film might exist here to go out on this note. Offensive to the idea of film and story in general, as a matter of fact. But Getaway isn't concerned with these notions. Not with story, character, logic, or humanity. It just wants to show us a bunch of car crashes and explosions. So you'd think it might have at least made those look a little better.
1/5
More Reviews:'The Hunt' Is Frustrating and Fantastic'You're Next' Amuses and Occasionally Scares'Short Term 12' Is Real and Miraculous
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//
From Our Partners:40 Most Revealing See-Through Red Carpet Looks (Vh1)15 Stars Share Secrets of their Sex Lives (Celebuzz)

It's not that Movie 43 is shocking or "edgy " or whatever any of the writers or directors would like to convince you. If you want to actually puke or cry or be shocked you can go to Rotten.com like the rest of us Internet miscreants. The Cinema of Transgression films by Nick Zedd and Richard Kern have more artistic value than Movie 43 and are generally more interesting. Which is saying a lot because Zedd's films can get pretty boring. You can only see Annie Sprinkle make out with a man who's listed as Ray the Burn Victim for so long... although I feel terrible for writing because everyone needs love. Sorry Ray.
Movie 43 has 12 directors and 17 writers credited with this anthology of shorts modeled according to producers Peter Farrelly and Charlie Wessler in the spirit of Kentucky Fried Movie. Surprisingly none of those writers or directors go by the name Alan Smithee. It's not even totally clear which were written and directed by whom; the production notes are "hilarious first hand [sic] accounts from those who were a part of and were witnesses to the creation of MOVIE 43."
Kate Winslet and Halle Berry and Richard Gere were tricked into participating which is supposed to make their "outrageous" shorts all the more titillating. One of the larger problems of Movie 43 is that it relies on this handful of mega-stars and on our reactions to them and their off-screen personas all in lieu of genuine comedy onscreen. Would it be funny if some schmuck on YouTube played a Steve Jobs-like character who didn't understand why his company's iBabe music player — which looks like a naked woman but has a coolant system with a fan between its legs — was mangling users? No it wouldn't. And it's definitely not any funnier because it's Richard Gere playing him.
What's most offensive about Movie 43 isn't the scatological humor but how shoddily the whole thing was put together. (To be honest I did nearly walk out during the Anna Faris/Chris Pratt short about her desire to be pooped on. I also nearly barfed during Salo. Because poop.) In quite a few of the shorts half of the actors' heads are cut out of frame. Their heads are literally cut off of the screen in a movie that was professionally filmed by accredited cinematographers. Now it could have been the theater projecting the film that was having the problem but that's not really my concern. My concern was mainly that a handful of paying customers (including myself) were sitting through a studio movie where the top of actors' heads aren't in frame.
The self-referential wraparound for the movie is embarrassing for everyone involved including the viewer. Dennis Quaid plays a disheveled crazy writer who holds a studio exec (Greg Kinnear) hostage until the exec agrees to buy his movie pitch. His pitch is the series of shorts which the exec obviously thinks is a terrible idea... because it is. This is like adding insult to injury because the creators know what they've made is crap. Even the studio exec that they themselves wrote thinks the premise of Movie 43 is crap and has to be held at gunpoint to bring the idea to his boss. This idea that you will have wasted 90 minutes of your life on — minutes you could have spent watching YouTube videos of people squeezing their own cysts or having botflies removed from their bodies or yes making out with burn victims.
Complain all you like about stodgy critics who have no sense of humor and don't get "the kids" today and all that but it seems that Peter Farrelly and the group of people who forced this towards theaters (with little to no help from most of the stars or writers or directors) are the ones who are completely out of touch. With anything. Including humor.'s>